I don't understand why designing something so it can be used by the input mechanisms that people will use is a bad thing.

Was it bad that there was a close button and people had the option to use that instead of just alt-f4?

Windows expects users will use several or all of:keyboardmousetouch

So it has affordances for all three. As i mentioned already, you can perform several actions with each input mechanism to accomplish your task.

Finally, there's no irony in WinPhone behaving differently than Windows itself. WinPhone is an even more constrained environment. As such it can make further decisions on what gestures make sense for its environment. Just because both Windows and WinPhone support touch doesn't mean they'll have all the same gestures or support all the same interaction metaphors.

Note: that this is similar to OSX and iOS as well. OSX supports a whole host of touch gestures on its touch pad. They are not all the same as hte ones on iOS.

It really doesn't matter. It's obviously something designed for touch enabled devices, used in a class of predominately non-touch enabled devices (PCs), and unused in one class of touch enabled devices (WP8).

Not sure I agree. Dragging down from top actually isn't all that great of a touch gesture IMO - the top is the least accessible of the four edges in typical slate / touch laptop postures, and then you have to move your finger across the entire height of the display. OTOH with mouse, the edges are all equally accessible, and thanks to acceleration there's less effort involved in getting to the other edge. Although it's true that dragging in general is more awkward with a mouse, but it's really not that different than the mouse actions for snap and maximize (by grabbing hold of a window from the top titlebar, and dragging it to an edge) that already existed in Windows 7.

It's obviously a touch method. You'd have to be naive or in denial to think otherwise.

contextfree wrote:

As for phones, their ergonomics are pretty different - you normally hold a slate or touch laptop with two hands from the edges, while you normally hold a phone with one hand - so the interfaces might be expected to be different.

Possibly. But a phone is more conducive to this kind of action than say having a close button.

It's obviously a touch method. You'd have to be naive or in denial to think otherwise.

It's a touch and mouse method. Contrast this with something that are only touch (such as the gesture to semantic zoom).

Quote:

Possibly. But a phone is more conducive to this kind of action than say having a close button.

But it's unnecessary on a phone form factor because MS dictate that phones *must* have a back button always available for the user to get back to where they came from.

in the PC market they have no such control and so Windows had to be designed given the billion PCs already out there *without* such an option. And, as wasting chrome here for a rarely used operation would be really unfortunate, they went with a single, uniform gesture that both mouse and touch could use. Learn once, use for both if you need it. However, for most people it won't ever be necessary.

Frankly, i can't believe this is still being discussed. I'm still trying to understand what it is about some people that causes them to compulsive close apps that the sytem has no problem managing. I'm curious how indeed they function without manually freeing memory from an application themselves, or manually assigning CPU affinity themselves, etc. etc.

It really doesn't matter. It's obviously something designed for touch enabled devices, used in a class of predominately non-touch enabled devices (PCs), and unused in one class of touch enabled devices (WP8).

Not sure I agree. Dragging down from top actually isn't all that great of a touch gesture IMO - the top is the least accessible of the four edges in typical slate / touch laptop postures, and then you have to move your finger across the entire height of the display. OTOH with mouse, the edges are all equally accessible, and thanks to acceleration there's less effort involved in getting to the other edge. Although it's true that dragging in general is more awkward with a mouse, but it's really not that different than the mouse actions for snap and maximize (by grabbing hold of a window from the top titlebar, and dragging it to an edge) that already existed in Windows 7.

It's obviously a touch method. You'd have to be naive or in denial to think otherwise.

So why is this one gesture kept more or less the same for both touch and mouse while most other things like bringing up the charms are totally different?

It really doesn't matter. It's obviously something designed for touch enabled devices, used in a class of predominately non-touch enabled devices (PCs), and unused in one class of touch enabled devices (WP8).

Not sure I agree. Dragging down from top actually isn't all that great of a touch gesture IMO - the top is the least accessible of the four edges in typical slate / touch laptop postures, and then you have to move your finger across the entire height of the display. OTOH with mouse, the edges are all equally accessible, and thanks to acceleration there's less effort involved in getting to the other edge. Although it's true that dragging in general is more awkward with a mouse, but it's really not that different than the mouse actions for snap and maximize (by grabbing hold of a window from the top titlebar, and dragging it to an edge) that already existed in Windows 7.

It's obviously a touch method. You'd have to be naive or in denial to think otherwise.

So why is this one gesture kept more or less the same for both touch and mouse while most other things like bringing up the charms are totally different?

Because it exists for a touch screen and not a mouse. With a mouse we've managed to do just fine with a close button...no need for gestures. A close button doesn't work as well for touch devices such as tablets and phones. Thus this gesture was designed for touch enabled devices, used in non-touch enabled devices (in the name of consistency), and not used in a certain class of touch enabled devices.

So why is this one gesture kept more or less the same for both touch and mouse while most other things like bringing up the charms are totally different?

Because it exists for a touch screen and not a mouse. With a mouse we've managed to do just fine with a close button...no need for gestures. A close button doesn't work as well for touch devices such as tablets and phones. Thus this gesture was designed for touch enabled devices, used in non-touch enabled devices (in the name of consistency), and not used in a certain class of touch enabled devices.

I'm not sure you understood my question. The fact is, in terms of low level interactions / signals there is very little in Windows 8 that is kept the same for both touch and mouse "in the name of consistency". Almost everything is different between touch and mouse. So why do you think this particular action was made an exception? Also, why wouldn't a close button work for touch?

Closing apps has a totally different significance under an app model where the user is expected to manually manage app lifetimes and resource usage (such as the desktop) than one without this expectation (such as the new Windows app model). Wouldn't you expect this to be reflected in the user interface?

I'm not sure you understood my question. The fact is, in terms of low level interactions / signals there is very little in Windows 8 that is kept the same for both touch and mouse "in the name of consistency". Almost everything is different between touch and mouse. So why do you think this particular action was made an exception? Also, why wouldn't a close button work for touch?

Perhaps I did. Dragging from the top to the bottom of the screen to close an applications would fit better with a touch based device than a mouse. There was nothing wrong with the close button used to date...unless you were using a touch devices. Therefore this particular gesture appears to have its roots in touch, not the mouse. I find it ironic something designed for a touch interface is not used in a touch device (at least a particular class of touch devices...WP8) but is used in an environment where it is less than ideal.

So why is this one gesture kept more or less the same for both touch and mouse while most other things like bringing up the charms are totally different?

Because it exists for a touch screen and not a mouse.

What are you talking about? Have you even used Win8?

Quote:

With a mouse we've managed to do just fine with a close button...no need for gestures. A close button doesn't work as well for touch devices such as tablets

What?? That makes no sense at all. A close button would work *fine* on a tablet. It could just sit there and a person could tap it to close an app.

I think i'm finally seeing where the fault starts in your reasoning. You think that the close button was removed because it was a poor choice for touch. It has *absolutely* nothing to do with that. The close button was removed because it's a poor choice for an application nowadays. There's no need for users to explicitly handle lifetime management of an app. The OS does a far better job on its own. That's why teh close button was removed as a default chrome option for all modern apps. It has nothing to do with mouse or touch.

I'm not sure you understood my question. The fact is, in terms of low level interactions / signals there is very little in Windows 8 that is kept the same for both touch and mouse "in the name of consistency". Almost everything is different between touch and mouse. So why do you think this particular action was made an exception? Also, why wouldn't a close button work for touch?

Perhaps I did. Dragging from the top to the bottom of the screen to close an applications would fit better with a touch based device than a mouse. There was nothing wrong with the close button used to date...

Yes there is. Here's what's wrong with it:

It uses real estate for functionality that nearly no customers ever need.

That's *something wrong* with it.

Quote:

unless you were using a touch devices.

Again, you were already asked this: What was wrong with a close button on a *touch* device??

Quote:

I find it ironic something designed for a touch interface is not used in a touch device

It's not ironic because, as mentioned about 5 times already:1) it was not designed for touch, it was designed for touch and mouse.2) it was designed for machines that MS doesn't control the hardware for. on WinPhone they have hardware requirements, and that necessarily changes how they design their OS.

I'm not sure you understood my question. The fact is, in terms of low level interactions / signals there is very little in Windows 8 that is kept the same for both touch and mouse "in the name of consistency". Almost everything is different between touch and mouse. So why do you think this particular action was made an exception? Also, why wouldn't a close button work for touch?

Closing apps has a totally different significance under an app model where the user is expected to manually manage app lifetimes and resource usage (such as the desktop) than one without this expectation (such as the new Windows app model). Wouldn't you expect this to be reflected in the user interface?

Bolding for reco since he seems to be completely ignoring this point despite multiple people making it of him.

Man, I oughtta be committed for continuing to waste energy on trying to have discussions with people who repeatedly completely ignore what I'm asking. What was that Morrissey lyric again?

How am I ignoring what you're asking?

He and i both pointed out the same thing. I've even bolded it to make it clear:

You keep saying that a close button wouldn't work for touch. How on earth does that make sense? Buttons work fine for all sorts of purposes in touch, and they'd work fine for 'close'. Indeed, on many Touch OSs, there are navigation operation quite similar to 'close' (i.e. they take you away from where you're at to where you were previously) that use a button. If touch works phenomenally well for that task, why would it not work for 'close'?

You seem to have completely backfilled in your head hte reasoning for certain decisions. You believe that touch drove the lack of the close button. It literally has nothing at all to do with that. The entirety of the reason to remove the close button was because:a) most users never need to close a modern app.b) modern apps don't want to fill themselves with chrome unless most users would need it.

Irrelevant. It's obviously a gesture for touch enabled devices. Windows Phone 8, a touch enabled device, doesn't utilize it while Windows 8 on a PC, a non-touch enable "device" does. If you can't see the irony in this then you're either ignorant or naive. Feel free to let me know which it is.

Are you just ignoring the evidence presented? Or are you simply not reading it?

As already mentioned *several* times. Windows targets a different hardware ecosystem from WindowsPhone8. Do you not understand how that difference can affect the *software* decisions in the OS? If the PC hardware ecosystem guaranteed the same things as the phone ecosystem, then Windows could make the same choices as WinPhone8. As the hardware ecosystems are different, the software is different. There is no irony here.

Quote:

If you can't see the irony in this then you're either ignorant or naive.

Or, alternatively, because there's is no irony once you actually consider the facts of the situation:

I have a feeling you're using irony in an improper fashion as no definition for irony actually fits this situation. Indeed, i can't think of a single definition of irony that would fit the situation of:

1) A OS designed for general purpose PC hardware works differently than a phone OS designed for specific mobile hardware. 2) despite both supporting touch gestures, the set of gestures if not the same across both.

Indeed, if this is ironic, then frigging Apple is ironic as their touch gestures in their desktop OS don't match those in the mobile OS.

You seem to think it's the case that if two things are touch enabled, that they should share all the same touch gestures. There is nothing that dictates that that should be hte case, and it's not at all ironic when they don't.

There is no irony, you just don't seem to get that they don't have to be exactly the same, Apple seems to agree with Meta and LDM, every touch gesture is not supported on every size device..

Edit -- beaten by Meta but hey, another vote for the non irony.

I don't recall having said they have to be exactly the same. That's a completely different discussion.

What I am saying is a gesture with obvious roots in touch enabled input methods (i.e. touch screens) is not used in a class of touch enabled devices (Windows Phone 8) but is used in an environment where the predominate input method, by far, is non touch enabled. IOW it was designed for X but is not used in some X but is used in Y which doesn't benefit from the designs of X.

There is no irony, you just don't seem to get that they don't have to be exactly the same, Apple seems to agree with Meta and LDM, every touch gesture is not supported on every size device..

Edit -- beaten by Meta but hey, another vote for the non irony.

I don't recall having said they have to be exactly the same. That's a completely different discussion.

What I am saying is a gesture with obvious roots in touch enabled input methods (i.e. touch screens) is not used in a class of touch enabled devices (Windows Phone 8) but is used in an environment where the predominate input method, by far, is non touch enabled. IOW it was designed for X but is not used in some X but is used in Y which doesn't benefit from the designs of X.

So they should not be the same, but then it's ironic they are not the same even though you just admitted that they shouldn't always be the same

So they should not be the same, but then it's ironic they are not the same even though you just admitted that they shouldn't always be the same

Stop with the "they should be the same" strawman already. No where did I say they should or should not be the same. I'm merely pointing out a gesture designed for touch interfaces in not used in a touch environment for which it was designed but is used in an environment for which it was not designed. Nothing in there about being the same (or not).

There is no irony, you just don't seem to get that they don't have to be exactly the same, Apple seems to agree with Meta and LDM, every touch gesture is not supported on every size device..

Edit -- beaten by Meta but hey, another vote for the non irony.

I don't recall having said they have to be exactly the same. That's a completely different discussion.

What I am saying is a gesture with obvious roots in touch enabled input methods (i.e. touch screens) is not used in a class of touch enabled devices (Windows Phone 8)

Yes. this is not ironic. Why? Just because a class of devices is touch enabled does not mean that they will use every touch gesture.

Quote:

but is used in an environment where the predominate input method, by far, is non touch enabled.

Again, not ironic.

Quote:

IOW it was designed for X but is not used in some X

1) It was not designed for touch. it was designed for mouse+touch.2) it use not used in a specific touch environment because that touch environment is much more constrained unlike the open ended ecosystem the gesture was designed for.

*not* ironic.

Quote:

but is used in Y which doesn't benefit from the designs of X.

Except Y *does* benefit. We've already pointed out the benefits. Namely a uniform gesture for mouse and keyboard, and less chrome wasted on an operation that is no longer necessary for most users.

Again, none of this is ironic. (Unless you're using some bizarre definition of irony).

I'm merely pointing out a gesture designed for touch interfaces in not used in a touch environment for which it was designed

You need to stop right there. "not used in a touch environment for which it was designed". It was *not* designed for WinPhone8, hence it's not surprising it isn't used in WinPhone8. Again, the phone platform is different from the PC platform. it has different constraints and there are specifications for its hardware that the PC platform does not make affordances for.

This gesture was designed for the PC market as a mechanism to allow closing for those few users that need to do that in a manner that works for mouse *and* touch, and which removes the need for any chrome.

Quote:

but is used in an environment for which it was not designed.

Again, i have no idea where you're coming up with this crap. It was designed precisely for the PC market. And that's where it's used.

Man, I oughtta be committed for continuing to waste energy on trying to have discussions with people who repeatedly completely ignore what I'm asking. What was that Morrissey lyric again?

How am I ignoring what you're asking?

He and i both pointed out the same thing. I've even bolded it to make it clear:

You keep saying that a close button wouldn't work for touch. How on earth does that make sense? Buttons work fine for all sorts of purposes in touch, and they'd work fine for 'close'. Indeed, on many Touch OSs, there are navigation operation quite similar to 'close' (i.e. they take you away from where you're at to where you were previously) that use a button. If touch works phenomenally well for that task, why would it not work for 'close'?

You seem to have completely backfilled in your head hte reasoning for certain decisions. You believe that touch drove the lack of the close button. It literally has nothing at all to do with that. The entirety of the reason to remove the close button was because:a) most users never need to close a modern app.b) modern apps don't want to fill themselves with chrome unless most users would need it.

Reco doesn't read anything he doesn't agree with, it's pretty obvious by this point. You both have rather thoroughly explained this and his determination to remain ignorant is rapidly crossing the border of trolling.

Reco doesn't read anything he doesn't agree with, it's pretty obvious by this point. You both have rather thoroughly explained this and his determination to remain ignorant is rapidly crossing the border of trolling.

I no longer read anything by Meta. He has an emotional attachment to Windows 8 which clouds his judgment. This has resulted in his arguing semantics while ignoring the issues. Nothing constructive results from arguing semantics. Instead the thread fills with noise as one person argues semantics, the other attempts to clarify, the other continues to argue semantics, and round and round it goes. You should be thanking me for not taking his bait and filling up this discussion with worthless semantic debate.

Yeah, but what, exactly, is your point at this time? It is pure and unmitigated noise man. Pure obfuscation. W8 is not to my liking, thus I ignore it and keep using W7. Perhaps W9 will be different, perhaps not. Who knows and who cares?

Yeah, but what, exactly, is your point at this time? It is pure and unmitigated noise man. Pure obfuscation. W8 is not to my liking, thus I ignore it and keep using W7. Perhaps W9 will be different, perhaps not. Who knows and who cares?

My point is I feel Modern has taken some steps backwards in several areas (see my comments about Modern IE for an example) and therefore doesn't showcase Modern well to end users.

There are a few posters on these forums whose comments are always worth reading, Meta is very high on that list, imo.

Of course he has some good comments. But his message and credibility are lost when he engages in petty bickering over words. I've given up reading and responding to his posts because I don't want to get drug into pedantic bickering. I want to have a meaningful, tangible discussion about things. I don't want to be arguing over words.

G3D wrote:

You think he has an emotional attachment because it suits your argument, read the forum for long enough and you'll discover how wrong you are.

No, he appears to have an emotional attachment as he has ties to the Windows 8 development team. He appears to view any criticism of Windows 8 as a failure of the user and not that of the OS. Several people have voiced criticism of Modern and his response always appears to be: You're wrong. And when you attempt to discuss it with him? He starts into semantic bickering over the way people talk and the words used to convey a message instead of the message. No thanks.

Reco doesn't read anything he doesn't agree with, it's pretty obvious by this point. You both have rather thoroughly explained this and his determination to remain ignorant is rapidly crossing the border of trolling.

I no longer read anything by Meta. He has an emotional attachment to Windows 8 which clouds his judgment. This has resulted in his arguing semantics while ignoring the issues. Nothing constructive results from arguing semantics. Instead the thread fills with noise as one person argues semantics, the other attempts to clarify, the other continues to argue semantics, and round and round it goes. You should be thanking me for not taking his bait and filling up this discussion with worthless semantic debate.

You have an emotional attachment to hating it and it's showed from the first post you made about windows 8. So the idea that you are somehow above this is laughable. Meta has posted cogent perfectly cromulent points and you've cherry picked his responses to suit your own arguments.

Reco doesn't read anything he doesn't agree with, it's pretty obvious by this point. You both have rather thoroughly explained this and his determination to remain ignorant is rapidly crossing the border of trolling.

I no longer read anything by Meta. He has an emotional attachment to Windows 8 which clouds his judgment. This has resulted in his arguing semantics while ignoring the issues. Nothing constructive results from arguing semantics. Instead the thread fills with noise as one person argues semantics, the other attempts to clarify, the other continues to argue semantics, and round and round it goes. You should be thanking me for not taking his bait and filling up this discussion with worthless semantic debate.

You have an emotional attachment to hating it and it's showed from the first post you made about windows 8. So the idea that you are somehow above this is laughable. Meta has posted cogent perfectly cromulent points and you've cherry picked his responses to suit your own arguments.

Oh please...surely you can do better than an "I know you are but what am I?" response. As for hating Windows 8 a post of mine from last Wednesday:

"I've been using Windows 8 for a few months now and I'm still undecided about it. There are many things I like about the new OS. But there are a lot of annoyances, primarily with Modern, which dampen my enthusiasm for it. I'm hoping these are version 1.0 related issues and Microsoft will smooth them over with time."

You can see the entire post on page four of this thread. I do not get emotional over operating systems like you appear to do. I evaluate them on their merits and decide if they're right for me or not. Right now Windows 8, at least when it comes to the Modern "side" of it, has some issues...enough so that I'm disappointed with it. However I am willing to cut Microsoft some slack given the 1.0 nature of Modern. I even own a Windows Phone 8 and tolerate some issues with that platform (such as having had to reboot my phone repeatedly during the middle of phone calls due to Bluetooth issues, not being able to delete downloaded PDF files, poor e-mail handling, lack of application support, etc) in the hope the situation will improve. I'm not a Windows 8 hater, I just find it has issues and point them out. If that makes me a hater then I guess I'm a hater.

Reco doesn't read anything he doesn't agree with, it's pretty obvious by this point. You both have rather thoroughly explained this and his determination to remain ignorant is rapidly crossing the border of trolling.

I no longer read anything by Meta. He has an emotional attachment to Windows 8 which clouds his judgment. This has resulted in his arguing semantics while ignoring the issues. Nothing constructive results from arguing semantics. Instead the thread fills with noise as one person argues semantics, the other attempts to clarify, the other continues to argue semantics, and round and round it goes. You should be thanking me for not taking his bait and filling up this discussion with worthless semantic debate.

You have an emotional attachment to hating it and it's showed from the first post you made about windows 8. So the idea that you are somehow above this is laughable. Meta has posted cogent perfectly cromulent points and you've cherry picked his responses to suit your own arguments.

Oh please...surely you can do better than an "I know you are but what am I?" response. As for hating Windows 8 a post of mine from last Wednesday:

"I've been using Windows 8 for a few months now and I'm still undecided about it. There are many things I like about the new OS. But there are a lot of annoyances, primarily with Modern, which dampen my enthusiasm for it. I'm hoping these are version 1.0 related issues and Microsoft will smooth them over with time."

You can see the entire post on page four of this thread. I do not get emotional over operating systems like you appear to do. I evaluate them on their merits and decide if they're right for me or not. Right now Windows 8, at least when it comes to the Modern "side" of it, has some issues...enough so that I'm disappointed with it. However I am willing to cut Microsoft some slack given the 1.0 nature of Modern. I even own a Windows Phone 8 and tolerate some issues with that platform (such as having had to reboot my phone repeatedly during the middle of phone calls due to Bluetooth issues, not being able to delete downloaded PDF files, poor e-mail handling, lack of application support, etc) in the hope the situation will improve. I'm not a Windows 8 hater, I just find it has issues and point them out. If that makes me a hater then I guess I'm a hater.

You're a complete waste of time discussing anything with because you willfully shove your head so far up your own ass you can't see for the darkness. Retroactively defend whatever you want, I'm finished trying to get you to argue honestly.

Where in that thread did I state I hated Windows 8? I started the thread because I experienced a number of issues with Windows 8 that I wanted to discuss. Issues which I specifically called out in the thread. Your problem is you equate any criticism of Windows 8 as hate for it. You are unable to see it for what it is: valid criticism of failings of the OS. I understand Meta's reason for defending Windows 8. What is yours? Is it the same as his?

Reco doesn't read anything he doesn't agree with, it's pretty obvious by this point. You both have rather thoroughly explained this and his determination to remain ignorant is rapidly crossing the border of trolling.

I no longer read anything by Meta. He has an emotional attachment to Windows 8 which clouds his judgment. This has resulted in his arguing semantics while ignoring the issues.

What issues have i ignored?

Quote:

Nothing constructive results from arguing semantics. Instead the thread fills with noise as one person argues semantics, the other attempts to clarify, the other continues to argue semantics

I like how you blatantly lie reco. Not only did that not happen, but if you recall, i stated *explicitly* (10 times) that i accepted your clarification. Your refusal to then talk on the issues shows your desire to troll.

Indeed, you've continued to avoid the actual topic and continue this meta (har har) discussion about semantics versus issues. As such, it's *you* that's not contirbuting.

There are a few posters on these forums whose comments are always worth reading, Meta is very high on that list, imo.

Of course he has some good comments. But his message and credibility are lost when he engages in petty bickering over words.

Funny then that you refused to continue discussing when your clarifications were accepted.

What's further telling is that you behaved in this way even when others raised the same points that i raised. This indicates that your behavior has nothing to do with me, but with the desire to avoid actual points that deflate your arguments.

Quote:

G3D wrote:

You think he has an emotional attachment because it suits your argument, read the forum for long enough and you'll discover how wrong you are.

No, he appears to have an emotional attachment as he has ties to the Windows 8 development team.

Again with the ad hominem attacks.

If you cannot address my arguments on their merits, that does not give you teh right to attack the person making the argument.

Quote:

He appears to view any criticism of Windows 8 as a failure of the user and not that of the OS.

Again, you obviously have chosen not to read what i've said at all. For example, when i pointed out certain decisions that i thought were unfortunate and which i hoped would be fixed, how can you say the above?

Quote:

Several people have voiced criticism of Modern and his response always appears to be: You're wrong.